Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 141.136.228.115 (talk) at 21:16, 21 October 2015 (→‎Who should do formal closures?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
    You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

    Start a new discussion

    "The root of the problem here is Keysanger"

    User MarshalN20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was "banned indefinitely from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the history of Latin America, broadly construed across all namespaces ...etc" in June 2013 because he "has engaged in tendentious editing and battleground conduct" (see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine_History). His ban was conditionally released on 1 September 2015 (diff) whereat he vowed "to assure the arbitration committee that I do not plan to edit any article related to the War of the Pacific any time soon." (diff)

    Six weeks later he edited War of the Pacific's talk page and wrote (diff)

    1. I am more interested in dealing with other projects in WP than butting heads with a user that doesn't want to drop down the axe
    2. This article needs to be heavily reviewed and fixed by an editor other than Keysanger.

    And in editor's @Neil P. Quinn: talk page (diff) he continues:

    1. Keysanger has been "working" on this article for several years now, and there has been no progress toward it reaching the standards for GA (much less FA).
    2. The root of the problem here is Keysanger.
    3. [Keysanger] he writes a soup of words that are more confusing than clear.
    4. What Keysanger is doing in this case would be like claiming that the Mexican-American War was caused by Mexico's envy of the United States (instead of writing about the accepted view of American Manifest Destiny expansionism).
    5. If an editor can't contribute positively to an article, either because he doesn't have the appropriate language skills nor has non-partisan intentions, then that editor should not be allowed to continue making a mess of the article.

    It must be emphasized, that I have not interacted with MarshalN20 for a long time (years?), aside from my warning in his Amendment request or as he accused me to be a sockpuppet. That is, MarshalN20 personal attacks have its source solely in his battleground conduct as the tribunal established.

    I see in MarshalN20's conduct a blatant violation of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and, even worse, the rules set by the amendment. I expect that the community apply the needed sanctions on the wrongdoer to end definitely the personal attacks. --Keysanger (talk) 10:36, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't consider to have broken my personal "vow" since I have not actually edited any article about the War of the Pacific. I don't consider talk or discussion spaces the same as articles—albeit discussing the semantics of my words is surely not within the scope of AN/I (as my vow was not part of the resolution that lifted my TB).
    In fact, Keysanger's request here is entirely preposterous. I have not personally attacked him, and have actually been quite empathetic to him in our recent interaction (see [1] and [2]). As Dentren indicates, my comments are a criticism of the "work" that Keysanger has done in the article.
    I place "work" in quotations because Keysanger's contributions to the War of the Pacific article, in a time-span of over half a decade, has left it in a complete mess (I called it a "soup of words," and that's a mighty kind use of words). The article needs serious work from editors competent in English who can write an adequate prose with proper paraphrasing and summarization of reliable sources. I would volunteer to help, but can't do so now due to other commitments.
    This is why I left a message on Neil's talk page. He attempted to help resolve a problem in the article, but the situation is so convoluted that he could not make sense of what was going on. My message was in no way or form uncivil; furthermore, Neil even thanked me for taking the time to explain to him the issue and provide him with an example (see [3]).
    This AN/I request surprises me greatly, but at the same time it opens an opportunity for a WP:BOOMERANG case where I hope the community can take a look at the War of the Pacific article and see for themselves its current state. I am even considering to propose that a community topic ban be placed on Keysanger so that he no longer can interfere with other editors taking charge of the article; please let me know your thoughts on this. Sincerely.--MarshalN20 Talk 11:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, and by the way, I didn't accuse Keysanger of being a sockpuppet. I pointed out in the SP investigation, as a commenter (not nominator), that the editing patterns between Keysanger and another user were very similar. However, this SPI took place in May 2014; it has been well over a year since then. The fact that this user continues to harbor anger over this, as well as his comment in my topic ban review (of a case that never involved him), serves as evidence that the saber still rattles.--MarshalN20 Talk 11:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Keysanger's description of the case is incorrect. The ban has not been lifted on the condition that he doesn't engage in the war of the pacific articles. The ban has been lifted, period. He is free to edit the article and the talk page as he see fit. For a year, if he causes trouble, the ban may be reinstated, and if he doesn't, it may be gone for good. So, this case should be checked only on the grounds of his actual comments. So far, I don't see anything wrong with them. Cambalachero (talk) 12:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd suggest a liberal dose of WP:DROPTHESTICK to Keysanger, first the sockpuppet accusation was made in May 2014, that's over a year old, second, his ban was released in full by the Arb's, MarshalN20 on his own promised not to edit the articles and he's doing just that, the talk page is not the same as the article. Further, you | struck out some of what he wrote and claimed it was a personal attack, Dentren | removed your strike out and MarshalN20 actually | re-wrote the struck out parts even though they didn't qualify as a personal attack, further your were the sole | opposer of his request to release him from his Ban, and you went back to 2013 to show diffs of his supposed "bad behavior". (* Edited 10/14/2015 1525 EST * ) Looks like Keysanger tried to | close down part of this discussion as well, big time not cool, and I should know, I've been called on just that same thing. Let's have an admin close this up with a note to drop the stick. KoshVorlon 16:40, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Kosh,
    you didn't understand the issue. As I wrote below, sockpuppetry is not the case. MarshalN20 and WCM accusation was immediately rebuked by the admins. The case here is MarshalN20's "The root of the problem here is Keysanger". It is a personal attack under any consideration. --Keysanger (talk) 20:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The root of the problem is explained in my original posting at SPI [4]. The key points back then, remain the same now:
    1. Keysanger is disruptive on the War of the Pacific, seeking to remove material on the grounds of a national POV basis. This doesn't reflect a WP:NPOV or the prevailing view in the literature. He's been raising the same issue on the article since September 2009 as far as I am aware.
    2. Keysanger has repeatedly baited Marshal about his topic ban.
    3. Keysanger has a WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality, disagree and you're an enemy. I thought long and hard before raising the SPI, largely for the wrong reason as at the time I regarded him as a wikifriend. As you can see above - [5] apparently I was "rebuked" by the SPI.
    I would strongly urge Keysanger to drop the stick here, withdraw what is a frivolous complaint and take a break from the article before he sees a WP:BOOMERANG headed his way. WCMemail 22:02, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with WCM analysis of Keysangers behaviour. He has long tried to impose a particular vision on the events sorrounding the War of the Pacific, one which avoids putting Chile as the "bad boy" diff. He has extended his activity to Economic history of Chile solely for the purpose of cleaning or creating a particular image of Chile regarding the causes of the War of the Pacific, and rejected mediation diff. Keysanger is an old user, active for more than 6 years, we should expect a minimum standard from him.
    PS. In August Keysanger made a vitriolic attack on me diff after I brought up the issue of him using socks/meatsocks (if untrue, why react that way?). I declined to bring the issue up for ANI then, I bring it up now anyway, just to not let this behaviour pass by. Dentren | Talk 07:00, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I ask you to return to the central point of the discussion, is MarshalN20's battleground mentality compatible with the goals of Wikipedia?. In my honest opinion, Personal attacks are contrary to this spirit and damaging to the work of building an encyclopedia. --Keysanger (talk) 10:00, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Keysanger, accusing me of having a battleground mentality is an extremely offensive personal attack. I let it slide when you presented the case here, but no more (i.e., stop). I also encourage you to read WP:BOOMERANG, specifically:
    Moreover, Dentren's diff ([6]) shows a good example of a potentially good contributor to the article (Ramirez) being driven out of the article by Keysanger.
    This situation is what needs to stop. It is increasingly become clear to me that the only way to stop it is by banning Keysanger from the War of the Pacific article.--MarshalN20 Talk 15:26, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Point of Clarification

    Above Keysanger claims that Marshal accused him of sockpuppetry, this is not true. I started the SPI check after a new user appeared, with obvious knowledge of wiki processes and immediately began editing on the War of the Pacific and supporting Keysanger in talk. He was also disruptive on Chile-Peru football rivalry which was a bit of a pet project of Marshals. Check out Chelios123 (talk · contribs) for details. At the time it seemed a clear case of WP:DUCK to me. Although not actively involved in the War of the Pacific I was previously one of the parade of editors that have tried to mediate the dispute on this article. WCMemail 11:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    He accused me as he wrote "Based on the history, it seems that there is either a sock or meat relationship going on here." (diff), but that isn't the point in this case. --Keysanger (talk) 12:00, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Au contraire, Keysanger, this is very relevant to the case. Your opening statement here intends to portray the idea that I have an agenda against you, and also that you are appalled by my alleged breaking of an inconsequential "vow". However, this example and the one of your ArbComm comment (both which you brought up here on your own), demonstrate that you have raised this AN/I case in bad faith. Raising a frivolous AN/I report because you are still angry over a year-old SPI, but claiming it is for a good cause, fits the definition of a cynical gaming of the system. The boomerang is real.--MarshalN20 Talk 12:20, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This ANI is the epitome of battleground behavior. When is soon? Even if he "vowed" "to assure the arbitration committee that I do not plan to edit any article related to the War of the Pacific any time soon." the topic ban was lifted. Soon is undefined and in requesting a topic ban be lifted pretty much shows an intention of editing in this area. Arbcom lifting the topic ban allows for him to edit in this area. There's no actually need to wait for the "soon" time period, if this isn't already after "soon". While he does not softly kiss any ass I'm not really seeing any breach of Marshal's release from his topic ban.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:52, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Community proposal: Article Ban for Keysanger

    Approximately since 2007, Keysanger has been editing War of the Pacific. He is the article's main contributor ([7]). After half a decade, the article does not even meet the standards for a GA; meanwhile, Keysanger has consistently exhibited ownership ([8],[9],[10]), POV-editing ([11],[12],[13],[14],[15]), inappropriate use of sources ([16],[17],[18]), and edit warring ([19]). This has effectively obfuscated discussions in the article's talk page ([20],), preventing other editors from contributing to the article. Moreover, there have been concerns raised about Keysanger's relationship to suspicious Australian IPs (most recent). Mediations have been attempted in the past, to no avail.
    Therefore, in order to promote new contributions and less conflictive editing in War of the Pacific, I propose that the community place an indefinite article ban on Keysanger from the mainspace and the talk space of the War of the Pacific. This WP:ABAN can be appealed to the community after a year. Keysanger would be free to edit other topics about the War of the Pacific, but his WP:ABAN can be expanded to a topic ban if the aforementioned disruptive behavior continues in these other articles.--MarshalN20 Talk 16:02, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support - as nominator. I thought about proposing a topic ban, but an article ban is more precise and less problematic for administrators to handle. It is also a way to encourage Keysanger to exhibit good, collaborative behavior while he works in areas that are of interest to him (there are plenty of articles in the War of the Pacific topic area [21]).--MarshalN20 Talk 16:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • OpposeYou mean it's not GA yet? OMG! How will it ever be completed by the deadline at this pace? Oh there is no deadline. With no deadline it's lack of GA status is irrelevant. I also see what seems to be an accusation of sock puppetry but there seems to be no evidence. I'm wondering how the SPI turned out? I'm also not really seeing any diffs that show anything that looks like misconduct. This pretty much suggests that there is no misconduct. No misconduct, no reason for any type of ban. I notice that there is currently no reason that you can't edit this article. Since your interested in it achieving GA status I encourage you to go forth and start taking action to get it to get it to GA status. I encourage the both of you to limit your interactions with each other solely to discussion of article content. Wikipedia has multiple means of dispute resolution to help form a consensus, such as a WP:RFC, so if you find that you can not form a consensus among yourselves I encourage you to use some form of dispute resolution to get a consensus. As I understand Marshaln20, you have already been topic banned from this area once and have been given a second chance. I wish you the best of luck with this second chance. I caution the both of you in your future interactions. Good luck.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:13, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Serialjoepsycho: I consider that this is a valid criticism. Thank you for highlighting the flaws in the proposal. I have added diffs, per the recommendations. I will add some more—there is plenty. I do not plan to add more evidence of Keysanger's bad use of language (I do not want to humiliate him). Also, the outcome of the SPI is not under question; a number of users (myself, WCM, Dentren) have expressed concern with Keysanger's relationship with users (Chelios, IggyAU/IggyAu) and IPs from Australia. I concur with the idea that there is no deadline; however, I consider that the purpose of article writing is to reach the standards set up by our community (the GA & the FA process). If we don't have a set goal, or focus, then what are we doing in Wikipedia? Keysanger has been working on War of the Pacific since 2007 and he is the article's top contributor; if he can't take the article to GA standards (at least), either because he can't or want, then the article should be open to other editors to contribute. At least that's my view on it.--MarshalN20 Talk 22:01, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm personally not convinced. This is not to suggest that someone else won't be. I would honestly again recommend caution. Your free not to. But you do know what the boomerang is. And there is no deadline. You can set goals. Personal goals. Other people can share these personal goals if they wish to. This person may have a goal set. I don't know. I could ask them but they aren't required to answer and it doesn't matter because it's not relevant. If you want to see it GA then go there. Edit the article. Do not repeat the actions that have before lead to a ban. Don't talk to them unless it's about article content. If you can't come to a consensus then use [[WP:DISPUTE] Resolution. You just got your topic ban lifted. You are apparently interested in the subject. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:21, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Serialjoepsycho: I understand Joe, trust me that I do. I love to work in articles with editors such as yourself, because you know the procedures and can hold a friendly discussion in spite of disagreements. However, this doesn't happen in War of the Pacific. Ed best explains the difficulty of working in this particular article when he writes that "[it] has been in dispute for seven years" and that "[it] has been the subject of many complaints at AN3 and at ANI over the years, but I haven't noticed any sustained admin attention to addressing the problems there" ([22]). Taking a controversial article through the GA/FA process is difficult, albeit not impossible. However, it requires that all parties strive towards a common goal. I know this to be true because that is how it was done in the Falkland Islands article, which I am proud to have helped in taking to FA status. I agree with Ed that admin attention is badly needed in War of the Pacific. I am proposing a solution to the problem; the community can agree or disagree, but at least I tried to help resolve this serious matter. Warm regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 02:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose on principle. I will generally oppose sanctions proposed by involved parties. There are exceptions. This is not one of them. Blackmane (talk) 22:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Blackmane, the problematic editing on behalf of Keysanger has been an issue at least since 2009. I would like to hear how you would address it. Keysanger had had time to learn and acknowledge himself with Wikipedias rules and policies. Now I see he is just gaming the system having actual ownership of War of the Pacific trough persistently disrupting and tiring out anybody contributing there that does not agree with his preferences (you can take a look the history of the article). What should be done? Dentren | Talk 07:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Keysanger appears to be on a crusade to "get" MarshalN20. I say the actions (like the ones I noted above ) speak for themselves, loudly. As for Serialjoepsycho's argument about not usually supporting a ban notice by one of the involved parties, who the heck else would bring it. I don't think that's a reason to discount . KoshVorlon 11:09, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @KoshVorlon:As for my argument? Could you point out where I've made this argument?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Support, albeit reluctantly. I have to agree with Kosh Vorlon that Keysanger appears to have been pursuing Marshal seeking sanctions against that editor. In addition, despite being advised to, he appears unable to drop the stick and disengage as I and others have suggested. The thing that finally convinced me to support the proposal was the "this isn't about me, this is about them" statement, after he was warned by several commentators about the WP:BOOMERANG. WCMemail 12:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, agree with MarshalN20 analysis. There is long-term (5+ years, half a decade!) disruption and ownership issue. Keysanger is definitely hindering the development of this article, because he uncompromisingly try to enforce his particular view of the conflict. Dentren | Talk 18:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It seems Keysanger's English writing abilities have been called into question in these incidents. I not only don't see any big issue with their English here, but find the concept that they should be sanctioned also based on a perceived lack of grammar extremely worrying. If their edits contain English mistakes, correct them. It's a wiki. LjL (talk) 15:38, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:CIR is just an essay. This is not a meaningful point. If a weak competence in English rises to a level of disruption it is a justification for a ban.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:09, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Keysangers comment

    Who are the commentators of this accusation?
    • MarshalN20 is an involved editor
    • Wee Curry Monster is an involved editor
    • Dentren is an involved editor
    • Cambalachero is an involved editor
    Why does matter who are the accusers and judges?

    Because Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its primary (though not exclusive) means of decision making and conflict resolution is editing and discussion leading to consensus—not voting. (Voting is used for certain matters such as electing the Arbitration Committee.) Straw polls are sometimes used to test for consensus, but polls or surveys can impede, rather than foster, discussion and should be used with caution.

    Hence, comments must be done by neutral, independent and objective editors and not by the gang of friends.

    What about my contribution to Wikipedia?

    Well, you may like my English or not, but I have made many of the best contributions to the article War of the Pacific. That is the reason why, for example, Dentren's tag was deleted. They were not my friends, they didn't accuse Dentren to be spy or terrorist. They analysed the content of the article, find out what Dentren wanted to say (!) and rebuked. They were volunteers from the Dispute Mediation that I, that is Keysanger, called to help. Is it my blame that:

    • MarshalN20 was banned of all articles of Latin America history?
    • Darkness Shines was blocked because Sockpuppetry?
    • Eduardo Eddy Ramirez was a SPA?
    • etc, etc

    If any one of you want to contribute to an article, e.g. War of the Pacific, he is free to do it. Keeping the rules of Wikipedia.

    What can we learn from this "discussion"?

    Most of the editors are tired to discuss with people that recur to vociferate and to bring his friends because they are unable to argue.

    --Keysanger (talk) 14:01, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    No Keysanger, I am not involved, I've never edited the article and my only involvement in talk was to act as a mediator. Which I remind you was at your request [23]. The only reason I commented was because of your inability to drop the stick. You really do need to disengage here. WCMemail 16:56, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment This is all also completely irrelevant. So what would be my question? So what if Marshaln20 was banned? So What? He's also been unbanned I notice. So what about what ever petty issue you've mentioned. What about your own Ownership issues? What about your own edit-warring? Even if they were some how involved how is this even remotely important? What about your own battleground behavior? Have you no answer for the charges(for lack of better term) that they have made?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:53, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Serialjoepsycho:
    MarshalN20 was banned of all articles about Latin America history, hence, he wasn't allowed to edit the article, so, it wasn't my "ownership" the cause of the prohibition, but his battleground mentality as is indicated in the ban!. Dentren's contributions were rebuked by the volunteers of the Third Opinion team, Darkness shines was blocked because of sockpuppetry, and Eduardo Eddy Ramirez was a {{Spa}}. So, I ask you: why do they accuse me of "ownership"?.
    It is not remotely important, it is very important to judge independent, neutral and objective. You can't expect neutrality from a person that has an interest to get a goal from the discussion. This is the reason why there are a independent judiciary power in a republican system and also in Britain. Can you imagine that some one accuses you of murder and he call also the jurywomen and jurymen?. Would you accept it?. I can't accept it.
    Do you want to now how it works: You accuse someone, get some votes from friends and as another says the libel is ridiculous you change the accusation ([24]), so you keep the old votes and get new ones.
    Greetings, --Keysanger (talk) 13:44, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Marshaln20 is no longer banned from this topic area. This is not relevant. There's nothing to suggest that they are accusing you of ownership because they were banned. This also isn't a court of law. The votes aren't votes. Consensus is not a vote. If you get banned there will be a strong policy basis for it.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:14, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that MarshalN20 had been topic banned because of a discussion about Juan Manuel de Rosas. An Argentine ruler, half a century before the War of the pacific, and with no links at all to that topic, besides the broad thing of taking place in the same continent at some point in the past. Now that his topic ban has been lifted, it is completely irrelevant to raise that point here for this discussion. Cambalachero (talk) 03:52, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:CIVIL Actually specifically notes that mention of past sanctions, when the reason for them no longer exists is of itself uncivil. Which is immaterial in any respect as the topic ban was not imposed for incivility. WCMemail 19:18, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I'm confused as to why or how espionage and terrorism got included into this discussion ("they didn't accuse Dentren to be spy or terrorist"). So strange. I hope this matter can finally be resolved by the community; the problem would only be prolonged if it got archived without a solution.--MarshalN20 Talk 04:04, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Dentrens comment

    I interpret the issues brought up here as evidence of Wikipedias grave problems. Editors are stuck in perpetual conflicts, some of them frozen, some of them re-activated. We seriously need to consider whether we will be able to solve problems being around here for over five years, when he haven't done so so far. Nothing Keysanger says makes me believe he will change his intransigence on putting forwards his particular view of Chile's role in the War of the Pacific. These prospects can easily be shaped into a pessimistic view on Wikipedias future: Aging editors locked on old disputes, biting and playing power-cards on newcomers. I seriously wish we had some new faces in the War of the Pacific and that we older editors move on to new topics so that we do not become temple guardians. Dentren | Talk 09:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    You get nothing when you change an editor and put another one. You have to improve the quality of the contributions and the best way, until now, is the consensus. You tagged the article, delivered a rationale that was rebuked by the Third Opinion volunteers. That are the facts. --Keysanger (talk) 11:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Back to reality, there no such thing as consensus in the articles where Keysanger has proposed himself to defend a the state of Chile against information that puts the country as a "bad boy" in his eyes. Examples: War of the Pacific, Economic history of Chile#Saltpetre Republic (1873–1914). Sietecolores (talk) 15:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Mark Marathon

    This case was first taken to ArbCom, where the overwhelming consensus was that it should have been first posted at ANI. Therefore here it is:


    Initiated by SBHarris at 04:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Involved parties

    Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

    1[25] 2 [26]

    Statement by Sbharris

    I am user:Sbharris, on WP since 2005. Late last year I got into an edit dispute with user:Mark Marathon which turned immediately nasty. Not only did he erase my warning on his talk about edit warring, he came to my talk page to continue the debate and add an inappropriate template. Long after I had decided to WP:DROPTHESTICK, 2.5 months later he came back to my talk page to continue a demand for apologies, despite being factually wrong. See [27] This kind of aggression does not work on me.

    I find this user has been editing since 2011, so is not a newb. He has in fact been blocked 6 times by 6 different admins, starting immediately in May 2011 and continuing to yesterday Oct 3, 2015, for various kinds of edit-warring. [28] Here is the last block—a war over a comma in a lede sentence: [29]

    This user’s TALK page is a WP:battleground, and would be even more so, if he didn’t remove the many past complaints and warnings there [30], including mine. My own attempt to restore my own complaint to his TALK page was yesterday reverted by the blocking admin user:Bbb23, with the comment that I don’t get to edit other people’s TALK pages. Fair enough, but where then goes the full record of this kind of thing? I am talking about a pervasive, longstanding problem with no evidence that despite repeated warnings and blocks, the editor learns anything. See WP:ICANTHEARYOU.

    Rather than go to Bbb23’s talk page to complain about another editor (which would seem to violate WP:NPA), and having massively failed (along with many others) to mediate with Mark Marathon himself (so much for WP:Dispute resolution), I have no alternative but to come here. I ask that somebody block Mark Marathon to avoid further such battles. Which, from the record, are completely inevitable. If nobody wishes to unblock, it will turn into a community ban (here is your chance, user:Anthonyhcole). If banned, if Mark Marathon wishes to return to WP under another name in 6 months per WP:STANDARDOFFER and behave himself, I won’t object. I believe in redemption. But I've personally had it.

    Other “ordinary” editors who have tangled with Mark Marathon may wish to comment. A partial list (20 people) follows so that they are auto-notified. You don’t want to see a full list. I am not including the many warning notices from administrators, or the administrators themselves. I would like to include admin user:Anthonyhcole who seems to think that Mark Marathon has gotten a raw deal in the past [31], and should comment in this dispute.

    User:AussieLegend, User:RTG, User:Afterwriting, User:Djapa84, User:Dougg,User:Varlaam,User:Mike18xx,User:Thomas.W,User:Barek User:Ronz,User:Tortie_tude,User:ImperfectlyInformed,User:Jusdafax,User:Shiftchange,User:Nomoskedasticity,User:Binksternet User:Gabby_Merger,User:Montanabw,User:Rstafursky

    And of course you can add me to the list. SBHarris 04:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Statement by Mark Marathon

    Statement by User:Müdigkeit

    I haven't seen a single link or reasoning why this should be handled by arbitration and not at WP:ANI. Such cases should be handled there. If they cannot be solved there, then they may come back.--Müdigkeit (talk) 07:14, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Statement by Hasteur

    Simply a procedural note that it is typically the procedure that when a user removes a expired block or warning from their page they've acknowledged that they received the message. We don't permanently brand editors with scarlet letters for previous infractions. It is the responsibility of the editor bringing the complaint to research, determine, and present the diff backed narrative showing how a editor has a pattern of misbehavior. The editor's log page can help guide this research, but we do not depend entirely on the editor's talk page to help us understand their sanction/warning history. The only exception to the removal clause (as far as I know) is active sanctions may not be removed from the user's talk page.

    Should this case be accepted, I do not wish to be included in any case updates. Hasteur (talk) 13:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Statement by Montanabw

    Seeing as how I was pinged (albeit the ping didn't work quite right, I got here via other notification), I'll just note my own experience. The full block of Mark Marathon was in part a WP:BOOMERANG that occurred when he filed at ANI on me here. On his talk page, the discussion targeted myself, RexxS, Wehwalt, Mark Arsten and DangerousPanda is more or less complete here. His generally hostile tone in edit summaries in that period is here. and talk page discussion links here. After his block in March 2014, he turned around and did the same thing again in December 2014 in a related article, straight to the bullying and the threats: [32]. And, I noticed today he was making similar pointy tags with snotty comments on yet another article earlier this summer. He also recently picked up the stick again on the same article. Further examples of tone include [33]. I don't necessarily think this is a case for ArbCom, ANI could probably review the pattern and act, but maybe if the other users mentioned above all have had similar experiences of pointy edits followed by hostility and threats, then maybe the overall pattern is something to consider. I'm not an Arb, it's why you all get the shiny badge. Montanabw(talk) 21:41, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Statement by JzG

    I think this belongs at WP:ANI, at least in the first instance. It does not take much digging to find that Mark Marathon is given to rhetorical exuberance, overstating trivial disagreements, grudge-bearing and the like. I think we can probably handle that sort of garden-variety misconduct. Guy (Help!). Warning: comments may contain traces of sarcasm. 22:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Statement by Afterwriting

    Apart from the frequent battleground problems mentioned by other editors I believe that there are also ownership and competence issues with this editor as my own unpleasant and very bizarre recent conflict with him at Waltzing Matilda indicates. I had made a number of mostly straightforward style and phrasing edits to the article which were all reverted by him with the claim that they weren't "Australian English". Apart from one innocent mistake, when I didn't realise that a place name was that of a property instead of a town, all of my edits were, in fact, consistent with both the MoS and conventional Australian English. He then made a number of comments on the article talk page about "my" editing "mistakes" which were nearly all about problems with the previous version of the article which he had reverted back to. In other words, I had actually corrected most of the problems he was complaining about but he had restored them. Even after I pointed this out to him with diffs he still kept criticising my edits for the same reason and reverting all of my subsequent attempts to improve the article's style and phrasing. His behaviour has been highly hypocritical and extremely petty. Despite providing the evidence to him he never admitted to restoring the problems he was falsely blaming me for. Very, very strange. Afterwriting (talk) 14:28, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    ANI discussion

    It kind of looks like the last thing he did he received a block for. There's little in the way of evidence here and he doesn't have to keep your warnings on his talk page to the best of my knowledge.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:21, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Noting all the pings to individuals that may have a beef with this user I do wonder if the canvassing policy is relevant to ANI.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:25, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Relevant to ANI, yes. To arbcom... no. Arbcom is no consensus process. Notifying involved users is normal. And that above was originally posted at arbcom.--Müdigkeit (talk) 14:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    So all of these users are involved?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Question What is the desired affect here? It the proposal that we ban an editor for a snarky comment that was made 8 months ago? Is that it?--Adam in MO Talk 21:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I second this question.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I also second this question. ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 23:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal The OP doesn't seem interested in pursuing this and the report is stale. I suggest we close this and move about our business.--Adam in MO Talk 02:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    So long as everyone involved in this thread is okay with dropping it and moving on with no action taken, I think that's fine and dandy :-) ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 17:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not okay with me, speaking for myself. The thread may be stale because ArbCom didn't want to look at it, not because nobody felt it didn't need to be dealt with period. See statements above. This is an editor blocked for edit-warring six times [34] and with at least an additional other editor pissed off for every time he did attract enough admin attention to get blocked. This is a persistent and ongoing behavior. If some kind of penalty and suspended sentence with parole is issued, that will probably stop the problem. On the other hand, if nothing is done, the problem will continue as it has since 2011.

    Perhaps I erred taking this to ArbCom. If I've erred in taking it to AN/I as well, then say so. If AN/I is not concerned with persistent edit warriors and disruption that makes WP a real pain to edit, then please say so here now formally. SBHarris 22:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Can you give diffs for the "ongoing" part? I think that's what's being asked above. Begoon talk 13:43, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless you are wiling to do the homework and present something to the community then this should be closed.--Adam in MO Talk 01:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Eeekster keeps posting speedy deletion notices on photographs that are clearly mine.

    I am a photographer with a DSLR. I publish my photographs on Flickr (under my name) and on my website, www.takenbynora.com. I would like to reserve copyright for all my images by default, including on Flickr, but for certain images that I am uploading I choose to upload them under a free license on Wikipedia. It is extremely troublesome to update all the licensing for every instance I have published that photograph under my own copyright. Therefore I am asking to appeal the process here. I do not know why User:Eeekster keeps giving me such trouble and this is an unnecessary process for a photographer who would like to share her work on Wikipedia. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 20:43, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I also contest if these photographs are really "published" if they were uploaded onto my Flickr account or on my website. They haven't like received notable media attention or anything (except for when I actually present my portfolio) to people. I could email "permissions" from my email (it's not like I have a Flickr email address?) but I am not sure why that must be done when I am clearly the photographer in question. Eeekster says that I could have simply created this account to "impersonate" the original creator of these photographs but I find this assertion kind of silly. Additionally, he keeps linking to an escort aggregator site which has actually used my photographs without my permission, not the other way round. (I am a transgender escort who advertises on backpage). Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 20:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I would further like that an artist I hate clutter in my descriptions (I often post prose or poetry) so having to edit my Flickr descriptions to accommodate every time I repost the photograph to Wikipedia under a free license would be extremely troublesome. I am enough of a scatterbrained artist as it is! Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 20:50, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Further proof that I am the photographer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yanping Nora Soong (talk • contribs) 20:54, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    While it's frustrating for people who are the actual owners, this is protecting the cases where peoples' photos are being used without authorization. As a side compliment, I imagine that the quality of the photo and its composition might have made it compelling to ensure that your rights are being correctly represented. Have you followed up on the instructions left on your talk page? I am not certain, but there might be a process whereby your flickr account can be verified once by OTRS that you are the owner, to streamline future submissions. If it doesn't exist, it would certainly help to encourage photographers to continue contributing their quality works.—Bagumba (talk) 21:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Can I ask for some emergency intervention? I don't have time to submit to OTRS right now. I updated my description on flickr for one of the images -- shouldn't that be enough?
    Also "Quality" and "composition" are subjective and shouldn't be used as evidence of copyright infringement. I consider myself an artist. Though I have been hired for gigs, I doubt my own competency every day (I get suicidally depressed sometimes about my own ineffectiveness). Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 21:36, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This is what it says on one of my flickr images: "I have attached this photograph (along with several other photographs) to Wikipedia under my account Yanping Nora Soong under a creative commons license. I would appreciate a speedy resolution of this matter. Thank you. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 21:41, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    "Also 'Quality' and 'composition' are subjective and shouldn't be used as evidence of copyright infringement": They aren't "evidence" per se. I was merely commenting that people are less likely to suspect fuzzy, poorly-framed photos are being passed off as someone else's work. It really is too bad a few rogue editors who steal credit for others' work make it harder for legitimate owners to contribute their photos, but it's unfortunately the world we live in. Tagged photos usually have at least a week to square things away with OTRS. I'd suggest contacting them to see what (if anything else) is needed, and arrange for a more convenient time frame, if necessary. Best of luck.—Bagumba (talk) 23:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm unsure I get it. You claim not to "have time to submit to OTRS," but you have time to make multiple posts to ANI? Ravenswing 11:31, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Yanping Nora Soong: Great photographs! Some of my photos have also been tagged for deletion in this way, in the past. The people tagging your photos have no ill will against you, but are trying to protect Wikipedia. If you follow the OTRS procedures everything will be resolved. Good luck! -Darouet (talk) 05:02, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Complaint regarding paid editing results (needs admin/CU + OTRS)

    I almost responded to Ticket:2015101610012722 - but an enwiki admin/CU may be better suited to follow this up. Storkk (talk) 12:55, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Having failed to garner an admin OTRS member, I've replied to the ticket, but my interpretation of the OTRS privacy agreement forbids me from naming the article or paid editor. Storkk (talk) 10:00, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved

    Disruptive WP:NOTHERE editor making spiteful reverts on various articles

    SundayRequiem (talk · contribs) is edit-warring on multiple articles, namely Microsoft, Chinese aircraft carrier Liaoning and Saturn AL-41.

    I'd like to request an external third-party to resolve this issue, as they see fit. --benlisquareT•C•E 06:47, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Just reviewed SundayRequiem's edits, at the least, he needs a stern talking to by an admin. Benlisquare, I know you feel that you are the aggrieved party, but please try to be polite. Darx9url (talk) 07:58, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    He certainly needs a talking to, but c'mon. Reverting warning templates on your talk page isn't being a "huge dick." It's being clueless. Let's not overhype this to be some manner of epic rampage. Ravenswing 11:28, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps "somewhat of an annoyance" would have been a better way for me to word my original line. It was a spur of the moment; my vocabulary tends to simplify when I'm hot-headed, you see. --benlisquareT•C•E 16:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editing by User:Courtier1978

    • Personal attacks and accusations of sock/meatpuppetry: The user has engaged in a recurrent series of personal attacks against me and other users that has exceeded the point of being disturbing and is now discouraging me from contributing.
      • This started on Talk:List of wars involving Cyprus, when he/she was explained that his additions were not properly substantiated by reliable sources and constituted original research: "You are the number one source of POV, in the articles related to Cyprus and yet you continue lying to yourself and others thinking that anyone will believe you. You are imagining things, you blame others for what you are, and then you are engaging in edit warring with anyone adding anything in the articles that you don't like. You will make Cyprus a favor if you stop filling the articles related to it, with your POV". He/she is clearly aware and has been made aware of the policy on personal attacks (as seen below his comment there + previously warned by me, a warning that he removed from his talk page). Following a revert of his additions by User:Alakzi, he wrote "Team work is not permitted by the way, under Wikipedia rules. You may want to tell this to the account that has reverted the article, for you". His personal attacks, along with his persistent refusal of understanding of WP:OR, WP:RS and WP:V and his polarizing (Greek vs. Turkish) tone was at this time so unbearable to me that I just let the article be for months, until Mikrobølgeovn reverted it a few days ago.
      • In the past two days, this has reached intolerable dimensions in a campaign he started across a number of articles: here, he calls me "a massacre denier", says "You don't seem to mind about all that, and the POV degree of the article aren't you, yet you hate the fact that I have said the truth about a totally pro-Turkish POV article and you are trying to distort it and portray me in a very false and negative way. The article at this point, is a totally pro-Turkish POV article, and your edits are highly contributing to this POV. If you are not realizing that, then you don't know what NPOV is and is better to stay away from the articles." Here, he calls a now-inactive user a "totally pro-Turkish user". Mikrobølgeovn, a user who has not engaged in personal attacks and is trying to adhere to Wikipedia policies as far as possible from what I see (he has filed a dispute resolution request), has been dismissed by him saying "I see only one Norwegian to be pushing plain POV here, and only towards and totally to the Turkish side, and no one else, and this is going for a whole year now. I definitely don't see any Greeks here. Stop trying to foul people, it is not working. The only thing that it needs to be checked is your motives and your ego and nothing else". He has written an extensive attack on Mikrobølgeovn here.
      • He/She has even gone so far open a sockpuppet investigation claiming that I and Alakzi are sockpuppets of Mikrobølgeovn! + tried to get me blocked for edit warring when there was clearly no violation, of which he was informed: [35]. I am very, very tired of this.
    • A definite lack of understanding WP:BRD, WP:OR and WP:RS: His lack of understanding of consensus-building is very apparent on several articles: the aforementioned article on wars in Cyprus where he kept reverting to his edition and refusing intermediate proposals, here and here. He has insisted on using everyculture.com, a website that is by no stretch of imagination reliable, and supported it by a marxists.org link to support his thesis that the Cypriot intercommunal violence ended with a "Greek Cypriot victory" - and his source from everyculture.com does not even properly support his thesis (it says that only about a series of clashes in 1967 and with no substantiation). He has been referred to the relevant policies many times, yet he keeps making comments such as "Lets add some communist sources then, since everything else seems to be Greek nationalists for you". He has also repeatedly removed information supported by VERY reliable sources: [36] in favor of original research. His lack of appreciation of BRD is also evident here.
    • On another note, he/she remained inactive after I let the article on wars in Cyprus be as he desired for about two months, and the moment that Mikrobølgeovn reverted him/her, he/she re-emerged: [37].
    • The situation is perhaps best illustrated by the history of this page. He/she has no intention of accepting even this neutral version and keeps reverting to this. This topic is currently open on the dispute resolution noticeboard but this user conduct issue needs to be resolved urgently. The user's activities explicitly display numerous WP:DISRUPTSIGNS: "Is tendentious", "Cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability", "Does not engage in consensus building", "Rejects or ignores community input", "Campaign to drive away productive contributors", and honestly WP:NOTHERE: "General pattern of disruptive behavior", "Treating editing as a battleground" (extensive activity against what he perceives as "pro-Turkish" across several articles). On a final note, I hate having to do this, but my previous work has included addition of details about the Armenian Genocide (especially on rape), significant expansion of Assyrian genocide and addition of atrocities against Greek Cypriots to Turkish invasion of Cyprus (e.g. [38]), all of which are antithetical to "pro-Turkish activities". Sorry for this lengthy text and taking the reader's time. --GGT (talk) 10:29, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    -GGT that is making another false accusation as usual, has being edit warring the article list of wars involving Cyprus since April, in cooperation with user Mikrobølgeovn that he has being edit warring the article for a whole year now, and he is also cooperates with user Alakzi in reverting edits of other users. This can be shown from their history. GGT in specific is very active in pushing pro-Turkish POV in the highest degree possible in the articles related to Cyprus and Turkey. Anyone adding any NPOV version, is seeing his edits deleted, and then accused by them as nationalist and other false accusations, and then they cooperate in pushing him on edit warring, and reporting him to the administrators. This has being going on for a very long time now. You can see this from their history. They have even permanently blocked other users like this, and now they are pushing the highest degree of pro Turkish POV in the articles related, since no one seems to be editing them for the reasons above. Even on this GGT has asked the help of user Mikrobølgeovn, as it shows from the message left in his talk page.

    Due to their actions several users adding NPOV versions have being blocked or stopped editing, and now only pro-Turkish users are editing, which has as a result the articles related to Cyprus and Tukrey to have been evolved to the highest degree of pro-Turkish POV possible.

    I will give a few examples.

    GGT and user Mikrobølgeovn are keep deleting ALL the victories of the Greek side in the article list of wars involving Cyprus for a whole year now and edit warring the article since then.

    GGT is edit warring the article Cypriot inter communal violence since April, pushing a totally pro-Turkish POV version and deleting all the rest. User Mikrobølgeovn is helping him. The amount of POV can be seen from the article. For example in the 1963-64: "Bloody Christmas" and Battle of Tillyria section, only Greek Cypriot alleged war crimes are stated in a very POV way and in the Outbreak of intercommunal violence section, only alleged Greek Cypriot propaganda spreading is stated, again in a very POV way.

    GGT is the main one editor for many months now in the Turkish invasion of Cyprus. Anyone adding anything that he doesn't like, is seeing his edits deleted. The totally pro-Turkish POV nature of the article is obvious for this reason. For example in the First Turkish invasion, July 1974 section, only Greek Cypriot alleged war crimes are stated and in a very POV way. In the article, the Greek Cypriot EOKA is stated as a nationalist group, and portrayed in a very bad way, Greek Cypriot EOKA B as a terrorist organization, while the Turkish Cypriot TMT is stated as an excused resistance organization and portrayed in the brightest and more excused way. The article is saying that in 1957, EOKA forces began targeting and killing Turkish Cypriot police deliberately to provoke Turkish Cypriot riots in Nicosia, something that is a total POV. In addition only Greek Cypriot alleged massacres are stated in the article, and the 1963–1974 section is given in a totally pro-Turkish way.

    Those are just a few of examples on what user GGT is doing. A look in his history and someone can see much more POV pushing in much more articles and much more edit warring and cooperation in edit warring with other users, always in pushing the highest degree possible of pro-Turkish POV that they can, and stop anyone else for editing, using tactics from false accusations to the administrators, to what the rules of Wikipedia describe as meat puppetry.

    Me from the other hand, it is fair to say that I have being adding only NPOV versions to the articles, adding both sides victories in an NPOV manner and adding what the people of the island have in common as it shows from my history. In addition I have discussed extensively, in the talk pages, and cooperate with other users like that, in adding NPOV versions, in the articles that I am editing, and left other edits after me unchanged. Ron1978 (talk) 11:52, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I suggest that this be taken to Arbitration Enforcement. Disputes involving the Balkan region tend to be polarizing here and do not easily get resolved. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:28, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your suggestion. Are there discretionary sanctions that include Cyprus to be enforced, however? Never in my entire editing life here have I seen reference to any such decision concerning Cyprus and it is certainly not referred to in Talk:Cyprus or Talk:Northern Cyprus. --GGT (talk) 19:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify, WP:ARBMAC, with its associated sanctions, including blocks, is about the Balkans, broadly defined. Greek-Turkish animosity has stretched historically from Macedonia, to the Hellespont, to the currently Greek isles of Turkey, to Rhodes, and to Cyprus. Regards to all. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:06, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    False claims of vandalism

    WP:VANDALISM states that "any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Edit warring over content is not vandalism. ", and further that "Mislabelling good-faith edits as vandalism can be considered harmful." An editor has been following me around to multiple articles , repeatedly undoing my good faith edits, and labeling them as vandalism - see list below. Can someone have word with them and get them to stop? When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 22:05, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This is almost certainly a sockpuppet account of an old editor. Either way, the account's sole purpose here is to make Palestinians and Muslims look as awful as possible, and to remove and soften critical information about Israel. Wikipedia's tolerance for editors whose agendas are to denigrate whole groups of people is a wonder to behold.Dan Murphy (talk) 22:10, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia has a no tolerance for editors like you, who have been repeatedly blocked for harassment. Control yourself, and if you can't, go find another hobby. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 22:15, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia also has zero tolerance for WP:DUCKs. clpo13(talk) 22:16, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've blocked the OP for blatantly disruptive editing. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you elaborate, please? Dan Murphy made serious accusations without a single diff to support them. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:52, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The diffs provided against Dan Murphy show reversions of disruptive editing on the part of the op. Not really much to elaborate on.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 09:17, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    What disruptive editing? Putting a single dead link tag next to a dead link (referred to as "vandalism" by Murphy)? Having a content dispute about a header (referred to as "vandalism" by Murphy)? Removing information inserted by an ip that is not only ridiculously worded, but easily ascertained as false (referred to, again, as "vandalism")? Please be specific as to what exactly is disruptive here, because I'm not seeing it or at least not from the guy who got blocked. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:06, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No More Mr Nice Guy has left wikipedia for long and should be given a very long rest. Pluto2012 (talk) 03:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    While I'm honored you follow my talk page, I don't have a shred of an idea what you're talking about. Doesn't seem like it's related to this discussion. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:12, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User Jss199

    Jss199 (talk · contribs) has made 173 edits since February 2014. I think he intends for some of his edits to be constructive, but he has a pattern of making unconstructive edits even after he has been warned. Some examples: removal of citations, removal of sourced content, adding unsourced content, introducing deliberate factual errors. He has received a number of warnings from several editors. He never responds to a warning or request for explanation or discusses on an article talk page or user talk page. He marks all of his edits as minor, including removal of entire paragraphs and other significant content changes, even after being asked not to do so numerous times. He rarely leaves an edit summary. Perhaps someone here will be more successful in getting him to communicate. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 22:12, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Following up: Jss199 was notified about this report as soon as it was posted. He continues adding unsourced content and marking all edits as minor. His pattern is to make no edits for days or weeks after a warning, then resume his usual behavior. Sundayclose (talk) 13:48, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Section and Subsection Titles

    I apologize if this is not the appropriate venue to address such a question. Although I’ve been around Wiki quite awhile now, the only time I was ever involved in an incident was the result of a misunderstanding that was easily clarified. (I know the word “misunderstanding” is often overused, but in this case it was literally such and the nonexistent conflict was resolved before we got here.) If this is not the appropriate venue, perhaps an administrator or experienced editors can steer me to where I should have addressed this question for future reference. I am currently not involved with a conflict, though I shortly would (almost certainly) have been had not one of my allies in the potential conflict rendered the question moot. So all that is left is to ask my question.

    We all the know the importance and power of headline writing in newspapers and headline writers are often accused of bias. My question is is there any Wikipedia regulation that addresses the matter of writing titles for sections and subsections within Wiki articles? Is there anything mandating that a section or subsection title should reflect the majority content of such?

    Thank you.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 17:45, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:NPOV covers a lot of ground - section titles which appear to show a specific POV would run afoul of that non-negotiable policy. And "headlines" are not written by the reporter as a rule - but by specialists whose aim is t0 hook readers Collect (talk) 17:49, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you very much for the quick and informative response. It is most appreciated.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 18:20, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @HistoryBuff14: You may want to also take a look at WP:COATRACK. While sections titled "Controversy", "Criticism", and such may seem benign at first, they often serves as "bug lights" for anyone wants to spread negative information about the subject. A section that focuses on a negative aspect of the subject should be rewritten with the relevant information incorporated elsewhere in the article. —Farix (t | c) 18:37, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Farix Thank you as well. I think you were sufficiently curious as to track my recent Wiki haunts and comments. I understand what you are saying. The curious aspect of this dispute (at least to my mind) was that those on the other side are contesting a mere name change (actually, an addition to the current one) that would bring a subsection’s title in line with 88% of its content rather than lobbying to remove or mitigate the material itself. But as I said, one of my allies unwittingly (I think) threw a monkey wrench into my plans to bring the conflict here. Therefore, I must concede defeat and that’s the end of it. Thank you, again. I have bookmarked both offered pages for future reference.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 18:54, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Discretionary sanctions in re: editor Trackinfo on Caitlyn Jenner article (Result: )

    • Request for Discretionary sanctions
    • Editor

    Trackinfo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    • Article

    In re: [[Caitlyn Jenner]] article:

    • Warning

    Diff to Discretionary Sanctions Alert (with "pa" parameter): [46]

    • Latest edit

    Diff to latest edit in violation: [47]

    • Reported by

    Respectfully, {{u|Checkingfax}}{Talk} 01:00, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comments
    What exactly is being reported here? Is Trackinfo subject to a 0RR sanction on articles relating to transgender issues? @Checkingfax:, you're going to have to do better than just vaguely report another editor with no request for administrator action. Are you asking for a block? warning? editing restriction? You should not expect admins to play a guessing game. Also, if you're asking for sanctions, which are covered by arbcom cases, against another editor you should go to WP:AE Blackmane (talk) 01:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    [[Caitlyn Jenner]] is a DS page, not an 0RR page. {{u|Checkingfax}}{Talk} 01:17, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment

    Here is the editing guideline we all work under:

    The article currently uses feminine pronouns throughout, as per the applicable guideline,[[MOS:IDENTITY]]. Please do not change feminine to masculine pronouns, or attempt to rewrite all sentences to avoid pronouns altogether. See the talk page for further discussion.

    There is also a DS that takes it a step further. Respectfully, {{u|Checkingfax}}{Talk} 01:17, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment

    Here is the violation basis:

    Request discretionary sanctions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area subject to discretionary sanctions;

    Respectfully, {{u|Checkingfax}}{Talk} 01:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    From your diff, Trackinfo reverted reverted to a version where there was no gender pronoun, so I can't see how your "editing guideline" applies. Also, Trackinfo is correct that there is a discussion currently underway. A notification was posted here, talk:Caitlyn Jenner#MOS:IDENTITY is being revisited: How should Wikipedia refer to transgender individuals before and after their transition? with discussions going on at WP:VPP#Revisiting_MOS:IDENTITY_in_articles_about_transgender_individuals and WP:VPP#Clarifying_MOS:IDENTITY_in_articles_in_which_transgender_individuals_are_mentioned_in_passing. Blackmane (talk) 01:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    From the diff, Trackinfo changed [...]"Jenner married 'her'"[...], to: [...]"Jenner married"[...]. That is the pronoun removal. {{u|Checkingfax}}{Talk} 02:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Talk page boilerplate regarding pronouns

    Because this article contains material about one or more [[trans women]], it should adhere to Wikipedia's guideline on gender identity, even if it is not a biography. According to [[MOS:IDENTITY]], such a subject should be referred to using the gendered nouns and pronouns (e.g., "she", "her") that "reflect that person's latest expressed [[gender self-identification]]". This applies in references to any phase of her life. Quotations and titles of published works are notable exceptions. Also please avoid phrases that seem logically impossible or distracting (e.g., use She became a parent for the first time, not She fathered her first child). Finally, please note that this talk page is [[not a forum]]. If material violating this guideline is repeatedly inserted or if there are other related issues, please report the issue to [[WT:LGBT]] or, in the case of living trans women, to [[WP:BLPN]].

    Your report is inconsistent. First you complain that Trackinfo is changing a feminine pronoun to a masculine pronoun. Then you point to a pronoun removal as the problem. So which is it? In any case, the discussion at WP:VPP will establish a policy to dictate this. IMO, this is a total non issue. Admins may disagree with my view. Rather than fill this thread up as a discussion between you and me, I'm going to step back and let others comment as I've made my stance clear. Blackmane (talk) 02:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I am reporting the pronoun removal ("her"). There is no inconsistency by me. It's right there in the diff I submitted above. We are supposed to leave pronouns in articles and not make transgender articles gender neutral by removing pronouns. Respectfully, {{u|Checkingfax}}{Talk} 03:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Please read the phrase:

    Also please avoid phrases that seem logically impossible or distracting (e.g., use She became a parent for the first time, not She fathered her first child).

    Clearly 1) the pronoun was unnecessary. I wrote the original phrase without a pronoun. 2) Inserting the pronoun is thus deliberately forcing a clear WP:BLP violation on Chrystie Crownover. Is there a sourceable statement that she approves of wikipedia stating that she married a woman? Is there any question that a rational reader might get confused by this phrasing? Trackinfo (talk) 05:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Agree with Trackinfo: The aim is to avoid confusing the reader. The reader is what Wikipedia is written for. Since Jenner was publicly a male at that time, and it was not therefore a same-sex marriage (and could not have been legally as same-sex marriage was not even in the realm of possibility), the pronoun "she" should be avoided there, even if we need some other form of re-wording (such as "Jenner had been dating Chrystie Crownover, and married her after graduating from Graceland" or "Jenner dated Chrystie Crownover during high school, and married her after graduation"). Softlavender (talk) 03:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Policy and style in this area is a subject of active discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Revisiting_MOS:IDENTITY in articles about transgender individuals. The AP Stylebook and the American Society of Copy Editors are struggling with the issue.[48]. That last reference is worth a read. Until some consensus emerges, enforcing a specific decision in this area seems premature. John Nagle (talk) 03:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note I referred to the active discussion in my edit notes. Since I wrote the original phrase, the other editor that I reverted is trying to force the (unnecessary) gender pronoun into the sentence in question. Trackinfo (talk) 20:06, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Diego Grez-Cañete

    Diego Grez-Cañete (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

    The last time this user's misbehavior was reported here (by Sietecolores) I didn't make my comments because I thought that I could fix our differences by talking, but that has been impossible. The user reverts every edit I made in his articles (because nobody owns them), and almost every time he made it without reasons or with very bad ones [49]/[50]. I've tried to discuss that reverts in his talk page, but he never concede nothing and even some times he has insulted me. Only a few examples: (a) he told me "Rascagua boy", a Spanish word play that combines my home town and "rasca", that means "vulgar" [51]; (b) he said "llore" ("cry" in Spanish), when I asked him to stop personal attacks against me [52]; (c) he called me "alharaco" ("crybaby" in Spanish) for asking him to stop the reverts [53]. Now he is accusing me of vandalism for putting the notability template in some articles of his hometown [54]; instead of adding "reliable, secondary sources about the topic", he reverted every single edition [55]/[56], falling in a avoidant vandalism criteria in my opinion. This is not the first time he faces requests of his kind, so maybe it is necessary to adopt stronger actions to stop his bad behavior. --Warko talk 04:02, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    *goes towards a corner and cries* (nope) Don't you have time to do anything else than ridiculizing all of my contributions to Wikipedia? --Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 04:24, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Diego, I get the sense that you're genuinely trying to be humorous. The problem is that regular humor doesn't work through text unless one has a good grasp of the techniques. Instead, you are simply appearing as a jerk. There are better ways to discuss different viewpoints with users. Insulting other users, in any language, is also frowned upon, but based on prior AN/I experiences I assume this you already know. At this point it would be wise to apologize and conduct yourself in a more professional tone. Best of luck.--MarshalN20 Talk 05:09, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And here we go again [57].--Warko talk 23:29, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Warko's tagging for notability of El Maqui and Pueblo de Viudas was incorrect, and the revert (i.e. removing the tag) was justified, per WP:GEOLAND. Legally recognized inhabited places of any size are notable ipso facto, content may be discussed on the talk page, but a notability tag may not be appended. Diego's snarky remarks are borderline uncivil, so I recommend Diego to stay within the bounds of encyclopedic decorum, and Warko to get updated on Wikipedia's guidelines. In the meanwhile I suggest you get out of each other's hair. Thank you both. Kraxler (talk) 13:16, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kraxler: First of all, this discussion is about Diego's misbehavior, not about the articles I've nominated. You should discuss this topic in the talks of those articles, not here. But as you're bringing up this issue, I will explain my nominations. For your information, I nominated those articles after reading the notability guidelines. The neighborhoods are not "legally" recognized by Chilean Law as territorial units (they are not part of administrative, electoral or census divisions). The criteria defended by Diego is that a junta de vecinos is a legal recognition of a place. Wrong. Juntas are not government bodies, they are voluntary NGOs based in a territory chosen by their founders. In fact, it could be possible to find more than one junta de vecinos in the same neighborhood, or a junta that is composed by neighbors of two or more different neighborhoods. Diego is now reverting old editions made by other users in this same issue without any discussion about it. [58]/[59] --Warko talk 23:06, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Discuss merging or redirecting on the pertaining talk page, or nominate the places for deletion (if you think they do not qualify under GEOLAND), but do not append a notability tag to articles on inhabitated place. It's that simple. ANI is not a place to discuss content. I already told Diego to be more careful with his tongue. I think we're done here. Kraxler (talk) 23:12, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I will follow your advice in the future. --Warko talk 23:21, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Agree the personal attacks have absolutely got to stop, and each editor needs to treat the other with respect and communicate clearly and fairly. Also, coincidentally Diego Grez-Cañete recently and bafflingly removed a fair-use image which had clear context for fair-use (even an entire subsection of the article concerning it) from Caitlyn Jenner, and seconds later nominated the image for deletion as "Unused". Since Floq is in retirement, I'm pinging Drmies who was the last admin to opine at the last ANI 3.5 weeks ago. Something seems rotten in the state of this editor's XfDs (and other behaviors as reported above: personal attacks, edit-warring over merge tags, false accusations/templates of vandalism, inappropriate final-level warnings). Warko: If you place a Merge tag, you must also place a merge tag on the target article and create a discussion on the target article's talk page, per WP:MERGEPROP. -- Softlavender (talk) 02:48, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Sweepy appeal

    User:Sweepy wishes to appeal the block I placed on him but appears to be incapable of following the instructions, despite having them explained to him by another editor. SpinningSpark 18:17, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    There is a language problem here. Can someone explain to him on his talk page in German? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:56, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Done (though I'm not a native speaker myself). I'm just unsure whether it'll benefit him... LjL (talk) 19:07, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I offered German before, but it was not taken up. Widefox; talk 12:30, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Had another go (native German), things should now be assumed to be as clear as possible language-wise; further intransigence may henceforth be safely attributed to other reasons.-- Elmidae (talk) 17:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That last sentence almost itself sounded German. LjL (talk) 18:57, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editing by BulgariaSources

    BulgariaSources (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continues to make major changes like [60], [61], [62], [63], [64] to the Bulgaria national football team (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) without leaving any edit sums or making any attempt to reach a consensus on the article's talk page. This has been going on for quite some time, and has included the using of IP accounts, despite being reverted on numerous occasions by different editors and messages being left at Talk:Bulgaria national football team#Changes being made by BulgariaSources and User talk:BulgariaSources#Major changes to Bulgaria national football team, etc., but still they continue on as before.

    Similar edits have been made by the same editor to other Bulgaria related articles, but the editor continues to leave no edit sums and make no attempt to engage in any type of discussion to clarify their reasons for making those edits as well.

    For the record, I've been assuming good faith, but I am starting to wonder whether this editor is really not here to help build an encyclopedia. I have notified them of this discussion here, so perhaps they will comment and help clarify things. I feel, however, that a failure to respond here means that some sort of administrator action is warranted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Might be time to throw all of the socks into the drawer. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 03:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    CurtisNaito at History of Japan

    CurtisNaito made a grand total of two edits (out of a total of over 5000) to the article History of Japan, nominated it at WP:GAN, and ten days later (after a very superficial review) it was made GA on 25 August. The article's status has been under heavy dispute by a large number of editors since, and after a month long WP:GAR, it was delisted today. Less then 12 minutes late CurtisNaito renominated it, and has editwarred with me to keep it nominated. Despite being told on his talk page that, per Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations/Instructions#Step_1:_Prepare_the_article, the article is to be brought up to quality before nomination. His persistent WP:IDHT response is that "the nominator is permitted to decide whether or not he or she believes the article to be of good level quality"[65][66]—obviously not the case because the article was just delisted for not meeting the criteria. CurtisNaito has already been warned at ANI to drop the IDHT approach or he'll be sanctioned with a 72-hour block. He continually tries to filibuster any attempt at discussing the article or his behaviour, including currently at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan‎‎. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:42, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    My personal belief is that the article is already of good level status, and that is why I chose to nominate it. In general, I think Wikipedia allows nominators to decide whether or not they want to continue with the nomination of a good article. On the good article review FAQ, one rule states, "Nominators have no special privileges over other editors, except that they can withdraw the nomination." Another says, "I failed the article, and the nominator just nominated it again without fixing the problems I identified! - That's okay. There is no time limit between nominations..."
    During the good article reassessment, there was not a very clear consensus to delist. At least four users or maybe more were in favor of keeping. It is true that user Prhartcom, who delisted the article, stated that the article is only "70–90% there" towards good article status. However, my hope is that the future good article reviewer will check the article for quality and assess whether or not the article is at 70-90% or greater. If it is at 70-90% or more, then I expect that the future good article reviewer will merely ask for changes, rather than failing the article outright. Naturally though, whether it passes or fails is up to the good article reviewer.
    I'm sure it will take a long time for the article to get picked up for good article review. It usually takes months. In the unlikely event that the article is still very far from good article status right now, all we need to do is improve the article before the review happens. If CurlyTurkey or any other user asks me to make changes to the article prior to the review, then I will make those changes. If any further improvements are asked for, I am ready and able to make them.CurtisNaito (talk) 05:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Also note that, while I did make only two edits before initially nominating the article. One of them was a large edit. I modified almost every section of the article in order to add citations and make the text more concise. I believe that if the article is up for nomination, there will be good incentive to solicit new opinions and to improve the article even further.CurtisNaito (talk) 06:01, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • CurtisNaito's disruptive behaviour both here and elsewhere should have resulted in blocks a long time ago. He and I were recently both told not to bludgeon discussions or engage in IDHT behaviour or suffer immediate 72h+ blocks. He almost immediately violated this moratorium by claiming on the GAR that no misrepresentation of sources had been found in the article, ignoring all the talk page discussion to the contrary (Ctrl+F this page for "IDHT" for the specific examples). His recent behaviour since the GAR closed has gone to a whole new level. Full disclosure: CurtisNaito has been monitoring my edits for the past year or so, jumping in any opportunity he sees to get rid of me. There is currently an ArbCom case due to be opened involving me and another editor with whom I am currently IBANned. CurtisNaito has absolutely nothing to do with this dispute, but immediately jumped in to badmouth me. However, the need to sanction him for his atrocious behaviour on the HoJ page is completely unrelated to the ArbCom case. If he is blocked but has anything worthwhile to contribute to the ArbCom discussion, he should be allowed do so. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC) Edited 11:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC). [reply]
    I don't believe any misrepresentation of sources was found in the article. During the good article reassessment, it was concluded that the accurate sourcing requirement "is done as much as possible" because "I was able to perform my spotcheck and have my questions answered." It was also noted during the reassessment that the article was at least 70 to 90% towards good article status. There was thus good reason to renominate it. If needed, I will make improvements to the article even before a good article reviewer picks it up, though when the time for good article review comes I'm expecting the good article reviewer may ask for revisions.CurtisNaito (talk) 12:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Self-collapse by Hijiri88. Sorry. Disputes involving CN tend to enter TLDR territory very quickly.
    Can one of the many reviewers who have already been poring over the article for weeks and finding mistake after inaccuracy after OR claim that have yet to be resolved act as the reviewer and immediately reject the nomination until further discussion has taken place and consensus has been formed? Also, if there was any justice on Wikipedia, your IDHT claim I don't believe any misrepresentation of sources was found in the article. would result in an immediate block per Dennis Brown's explicit warning (with the caveat that you would be unblocked if you wanted to submit evidence to ArbCom, of course). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC) Edited 12:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
    I don't think there is a need to immediately reject it. In fact, the user TH1980 did a thorough spotcheck of the article and found no inaccuracies or misrepresentation to speak of. Given how many users have checked the sources and found no problems with the way they are cited, this doesn't seem to be a big issue with the article. Ultimately though, the future good article reviewer will likely check some or all of the sources in order to determine who is right.CurtisNaito (talk) 12:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, pinging another user apparently doesn't work if the link is broken in the first post and you edit it. I have heard tell you need to re-sign the post or some such. And why did TH1980 not find the misrepresentation that I later rooted out in the exact same text? TH1980 was recently the subject of a separate ANI thread because virtually all of his non-mainspace edits since May have been attempts to undermine me -- his !voting the opposite way to me in a GAR should most definitely be taken with a pinch of salt, especially when he makes outrageous claims like that he has checked the sources and there was no misrepresentation in order to justify such !votes. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Mahensingha misunderstanding/misusing rollback "rights"

    This editor claims his credibility granted him "certain rights and privileges", including WP:Rollback, after admitting that they "not simply" broke WP:3RR, but used "a special administrative feature to revert consecutive edits" which, while they amounted to an edit war, did not constitute vandalism or anything contemplated as a valid use of rollback.

    As they somewhat proudly proclaimed (see first link again), the user they were edit warring against is now blocked for WP:Sock puppetry used to edit war (not, however, for the reasons Mahensingha attacked them, namely a WP:COI without evidence), but that's really neither here nor there.

    I think this user does not understand the proper use of rollback, or, for that matter, what having flags on Wikipedia means (certainly not "rights and privileges" in my book), and they should either be explained much better than I was able, or revoked those flags.

    LjL (talk) 15:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I am going to ping @Nakon: who gave this user the rollback right. My personal opinion is that rollback is easy come and easy go. There does seems to be some argument in making it go in this case. I will wait for others to comment first though. HighInBC 15:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like Mahensingha only rolled back the removal of maintenance templates at Bihari Rajputs. This seems to be within discretionary boundaries of policy. Are there other examples of misuse?- MrX 15:31, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The removal and reinstatement of those templates showed to be a contentious issue (particularly the bogus COI-related one, I'd say). Anyway, I'm just going by the fact that the editor himself stated: "It is not that I simply reverted 3 or even more edits of the user. I used my Rollbacker rights, a special administrative feature used against Vandalism to revert consecutive edits of that nature". I read this as saying they not only reverted more than 3 times, but they used rollback to do so. The feature is "used against vandalism", but they didn't use it against vandalism. In fact, I later removed the COI template myself because there were no grounds to keep it. I believe understanding what vandalism is is required. LjL (talk) 15:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It's my understanding that rollback is only to be used against clear vandalism and the placing and removal of ordinary maintenance templates and tags isn't vandalism. I don't know if this warrants taking away the rollbacker right but Mahensingha should better understand the proper use of rollback. And Nakon hasn't edited for a week so I'm not sure if or when they will reply to your ping. Liz Read! Talk! 16:00, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Many of us consider bulk removing maintenance templates in bad faith as vandalism. It is reasonable to use rollback when the reason for reverting is absolutely clear. Mahensingha will need to defend his own use of rollback since this is obviously not an unambiguous case.- MrX 16:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I think rollback was probably used inappropriately, but honestly, that's not my main reason for filing this report. What concerns me is this editor's apparent (stated) belief that flags such as rollback make them "superior" to other editors. I think it's deleterious for people who think like this to have such flags, until they understand what they really are about. LjL (talk) 16:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I again suspect here that the current reporting user is a sock puppet of the blocked user User talk:Burbak earlier name User talk:Suijai who has been consistently engaged in disruptive editing and using multiple accounts for accomplishment of the same tasks of taking complete ownership of the Article Bihari Rajputs. I request the eminent Admins and other experts to look into the matter more seriously, so as to discourage such anti wikipedian behaviours. It was not only me but other eminent wikipedians too observed the behaviour of the User:Burbak See here]. Please also refer to the detailed investigation of sockpuppet here. May be I am not able to effectively deal with this issue, but certainly such practices of the sock be controlled so that no one finds is so easy to do it here. It is needless to explain much, the eminent body is wise enough to find the fact. It is definitely an intentional report filed in response to what happened with User talk:Burbak and seems to be a sock for the same.--MahenSingha (Talk) 17:40, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, I'm totally a sockpuppet of Burbak (admin note: no, I'm not), feel free to start a sockpuppet investigation about me. LjL (talk) 17:48, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Then Please tell me that why have you filed this report after the result of the sockpuppet investigation of the said user. If you were so unsatisfied then you could have done it earlier in due time when after the incident you sided with the user who right after the release of his block started same for which he was blocked. I certainly suspect you under prevailing situation.--MahenSingha (Talk) 18:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Once again regarding the words used what the LjL is reporting are not my words, as I simply reproduce it from the policy page where the process of Rollback is defined. I can't remember for how long I hold the Rollbacker Flag, but can the reporting user cite any other issue where I misused this feature. It is the proof that I whole heatedly abide by the policies. But, can he give a link that he has equally or a bit advised Burbak the other party reverting the page again and again imposing his ownership on the page. The reporting user claims here that he is just a 10 daysyears (corrected) old on wikipedia. Is it really so? All these and his sudden changed behaviour makes me think that he is intentionally doing this in response to the disciplinary action taken against the other party involved in disruption. --MahenSingha (Talk) 19:08, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Uhm, no, sorry, my claim was that my user is 10 years old on Wikipedia, not days. I suggest you read more carefully. As to the rest, well, it seems inconsequential to the report here. LjL (talk) 19:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Long-time disruption and refusal to WP:HEAR

    For several weeks now, Apokrif consistently tries to soften criticism against scientology. The account removes the classification of scientology as a cult in France [67], [68], [69]. Under WP:AGF, I supplied the source, the actual parliamentary report [70]. That didn't help, Apokrif just kept deleting, and deleted the source as well [71], before changing strategy and starting to add the weasel word "some authorities" (obvious nonsense and WP:OR, France does not have alternative authorities) [72], [73], [74], [75], [76].
    As an admin already put in on talk, At least one of the arguments that editor has used, to the effect that a parliamentary report is not a sufficient declaration to declare whether a group is counted as a cult, as per here, unusual at best. [77]. At least three users have told Apokrif to stop, but the user refuses to WP:HEAR and just goes on. After the last round, I told the user it would move to ANI if the disruptions continued, but I see it did not help and Apokrif just continued. It's obvious this user is here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and won't be bothered by a complete consensus against them. As discussing with the user does not help, I take it here. Jeppiz (talk) 16:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Just for the record, I am a former admin, not a current admin. But I believe that if you think that the matter rises to the level of disruptive editing as per WP:DE, it would probably be best to raise the matter at WP:AE. John Carter (talk) 16:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    "For several weeks now, Apokrif consistently tries to soften criticism against scientology." That's wrong, as can be seen in the article history. I gave several sources which help to put into perspective the parliamentary report, and frankly I wonder if Jeppiz ot other contributors even bothered to read them. (talk) 16:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't Scientology as a topic under sanctions? —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 16:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    "the parliamentary report has little or no parliamentary value" That claim by Apokrif says it all about this user. And I can see no "sources" given by Apokrif, just links to other Wikipedia pages. In other words, Apokrif disputes using a parliamentary report and disputes using articles in leading French media if they contradict Apokrif's POV, but the user is happy using Wikipedia-links as sources if they conform to their POV. It is obvious that this is a case of WP:NOTHERE Jeppiz (talk) 16:43, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If I wrote this (several edits and edit conflict in this section), I was actually meaning "no legal value", as explained in a source I quoted in the talk page (which I suggest you read before going any further). "France does not have alternative authorities" I'm not sure I get your point, did you read this? Apokrif (talk) 16:48, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    " And I can see no "sources" given by Apokrif" Did you refresh you browser (e.g. with the F5 key)? I gave links to a circulaire, a minister's answer to the National Assembly, and a book, here. Apokrif (talk) 16:50, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    "just links to other Wikipedia pages" Did you read them? They explain (minus some links) all that is needed to know on this topic (an argument and a soruce are two different things). Also, we should favor reliable sources, like this Phd dissertation, rather than "leading media" which not always know what they're talking about. Do you have anything to say (you never did although, I explicitly asked you) to dispute the use of this source or of the other sources I cited? Btw, which "leading French media" are you referring to? Is is this Nouvel Obs paper, which only says " En France, il a été classé comme "secte", dans un rapport parlementaire de 1995, jamais actualisé depuis" and so gives us not much more than the report itself? Thats' another question I already asked without getting any answer, so if you have anything to add to the debate, why don't you do it in the relevant place (the article Talk page)? Apokrif (talk) 17:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not the place to discuss the article, the topic is your behavior. The fact of the matter is that
    *(at least) three different users have reverted your edits, so you know the consensus is against you.
    *Even more users have disagreed with you on the talk page.
    You're edit warring and disrupting a sensitive article, it has gone on for much more than a week, and you refuse to acknowledge that the consensus is against you, you just continue to ignore other opinions. Jeppiz (talk) 19:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    "you just continue to ignore other opinions" Wrong: I discussed them here and in other places (but perhaps you have a page refresh problem, did you try F5 as suggested above?). Could you please answer my relevant questions above and, so as not to obscure the debate, remove the inaccuracies (like "tries to soften criticism") you wrote? Apokrif (talk) 19:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've alerted User:Apokrif to the discretionary sanctions under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology. EdJohnston (talk) 19:40, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandalism of page tags by nationalist tag-team, Iryna Harpy and Faustian

    Vandalism of page tags by nationalist tag-team, Iryna Harpy and Faustian

    I have been an editor for now over 3 years now, and this is my first complaint here. I have issues with Iryna Harpy and Faustian, who work as a WP:TAGTEAM. I have had a problem with them on Polish census of 1931 repeatedly deleting the NPOV tag. (I believe this is the only time that I have invoked it on a page, and I did so with good reason, infra.)

    Evidence submitted

    Iryna Harpy was warned here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Iryna_Harpy&oldid=685660546#Do_not_remove_NPOV_tags_until_issues_resolved_on_pages. And here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Iryna_Harpy&oldid=685660546#Disruptive_Editing_of_the_Polish_census_of_1931

    Faustian was warned here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Faustian#Do_not_remove_NPOV_tags_until_issues_resolved_on_pages. And here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Faustian#Disruptive_Editing_of_the_Polish_census_of_1931 And here for removing maintenance tags by Poeticbent: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Faustian#November_24

    Iryna Harpy was warned for innappropriate conduct on talk pages recently here by Admin Softlavender: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=683692541#Harassment_by_user_Iryna_Harpy

    Iryna Harpy was warned for canvassing on her talk page regarding Ukrainain nationalist POV here by user Volunteer Marek https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Iryna_Harpy&oldid=683535025#2.2C000_dead_Russian_soldiers

    Iryna Harpy here is canvassing Faustian here on Ukrainian pages: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Faustian&oldid=638861689#Articles_being_changed

    and here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Faustian&oldid=638861689#New_article_makes_me_very.2C_very_nervous

    and here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Faustian&oldid=638861689#WARNING_regarding_Wiki_naming_policy_for_ethnic_groups_and_self-identification

    Faustian was blocked for edit warring on Polish-Ukrainain issues here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Faustian&oldid=638861689#March_2014

    Faustian was warned by Admin  Sandstein  of The Arbitration Committee sanctions for violating normal editorial process in pages related to Eastern Europe here: 

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Faustian&oldid=638861689#Arbitration_enforcement_warning:_Eastern_Europe

    In this case, over a year ago, the editors of the 1931 Census of Poland decided to replace the census results data from a tertiary source, to the published census itself (the secondary source). Faustian here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Polish_census_of_1931#Regarding_manipulation and Iryna Harpy here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Polish_census_of_1931#Removed_original_research Began making claims that citing from the original census document, which is standard practice on WP for a census, was OR, Synth, or a violation of policy regarding primary sources. (Comments from uninvolved editors on the NORNB and village pump policy are contrary to this opinion see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Polish_census_of_1931 and here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Primary_source_guidelines_on_census_pages ) A year later, percentages were calculated per WP:CALC and data was put in tables. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polish_census_of_1931&diff=next&oldid=684533225 This resulted in POV blanking and more similar complaints from Iryna Harpy, (Faustian also reverted the page,) also claiming that editors cannot translate foreign documents, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Polish_census_of_1931#Objections_to_the_fidelity_of_this_page_reporting_the_results_of_the_Polish_Census_of_1931 In a discussion on the NORNB, Iryna Harpy, admited that she, herself, translates foreign langue into English in her editing, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Polish_census_of_1931 I consider this a tactical play to censor the page. Please note that this census was the last in what had been an extremely ethnically, linguistically, and religiously diverse region before WWII. The census data is an important tool for social scientists and students studying the region now that archives are now open. It is important that the original census be made public. So, to avoid disruptive objections about OR, I took the time to save images of the population totals both nationally and from each city and province and provide links on the page. This resulted in Iryna Harpy, censoring the images in what I consider vandalism here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polish_census_of_1931&oldid=685657081 My edits adding the image links has been sustained by other editors and presently remains on the page.

    I also noticed that the page was giving undue weight to the opinions and contentions of a Communist Party historian Jerzy Tomaszewski that the census itself was somehow rigged, but obscuring that source through citing it indirectly through other tertiary sources, and also not giving equal weight to contemporary sources from the era of the census, or post-communist historians. Therefore, I tagged the article with the NPOV tag. This resulted in the WP:TAGTEAM of Faustian and Iryna Harpy repeatedly deleting the tag, with comments like “no need for tag judt because one single editor has a problem” purporting to speak for all of the remaining editors of the page. See here: here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polish_census_of_1931&oldid=686103633 here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polish_census_of_1931&oldid=686118684 here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polish_census_of_1931&oldid=686189263 here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polish_census_of_1931&oldid=686359396 and here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polish_census_of_1931&oldid=686412518

    This is contrary to what the tag itself clearly states, “"The purpose of this group of templates is to attract editors with different viewpoints to edit articles that need additional insight." Also note that it reads, "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved." Thus, there is no rule for a consensus on the page for an editor who see a problem with NPOV to tag the page. Also note that improper deletion of page tags is considered vandalism: “Abuse of tags Bad-faith placing of non-content tags such as {afd}, {delete}, {sprotected}, or other tags on pages that do not meet such criteria. This includes baseless removal of {policy} and related tags.” WP:VANDTYPES (NPOV is funadmental WP policy) Since the dispute had not been resolved, repeatedly removing the tag was baseless, and thus vandalism since those who removed it were attmepting to defeat the clear purpose of the tag. If nothing else, it was disruptive to normal editing process. Reverting vandalism is not edit warring or a violation of 3RR.

    Even though he had engaged in vandalism, Faustian reported me for edit warring and violating the 3RR rule here citing Iryna Harpy in support of his contention., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User_talk:Doctor_Franklin_reported_by_User:Faustian_.28Result:_blocked.29 The result is that I got blocked by Admin MSGJ without giving me an opportunity to respond. I honestly didn't think I had done this. I was not reverting the page content itself, just the tag in accordance with the stated policy. I was acting in good faith, and I believe that some clarification is in order on the NPOV tag if I was incorrect.

    I then requested to have the block that was placed on me removed. I even agreed to not edit the page again for the duration of the block, and requested to be able to respond to another editor on the noticeboards. This was denied by Admin  OhNoitsJamie, who considered this not as a first time possible violation of 3RR, but made a comment about “You don't get to keep ugly tags up until someone joins the discussion who agrees with you.” here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Doctor_Franklin#You_have_been_reported_for_your_behavior. Well that assumed bad faith on my part, failed to address that another editor, Piotrus, had edited the tag on the page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polish_census_of_1931&oldid=686453370 and agreed with my point in the talk page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Polish_census_of_1931#What_exactly_is_not_neutral_here.3F. Thus, the NPOV tag worked as intended, despite the vandalism and disruptive editors. Since this was my first citation for violating 33R, I consider the refusal to accept my promise to not edit the page for the duration of the block, and the resulting threats about sanctions for NPOV tagging by Admin  OhNoitsJamie inappropriate and punitive, contrary to the policy for blocking a user which did not amount to a violation of 3RR.

    In conclusion, this is my first complaint here. I have had a clean record in this regard, and I believe that there were problems with the other editors cited, and the application or explanation of the relevant policies related to the NPOV tag by admins. I was acting in good faith and trying to address this problem on the noticeboards when I got blocked. Doctor Franklin (talk) 17:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I've collapsed the above for brevity's sake. What exactly are you asking for here? What actions would you like to see taken (in a short two or three sentence reply)?
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see this: [78]. Doctor Franklin is involved in a one-man crusade against various other editors and this is part of his disruptive behavior. An example is here: [79] (this also linked to, in the other link I provided)Faustian (talk) 19:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with Faustian This would be a clear WP:BOOMERANG were it not too long to read. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:05, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Bad faith removal of AFD discussion

    EEng removed a poster's vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antonia Gerena Rivera (2nd nomination) and refuses to apologize for removing it. That's just not nice. I think a topic ban may be warranted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.170.48.209 (talk) 17:57, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This is not a vote. Creating a new account for the sole purpose of closing an AFD while masking your prior identity, so other editors don't know your prior history at Wikipedia is not allowed. When you then LOG OUT of that account to do it again: [80] that's doubly wrong, and THEN when you use a new IP address to "report" the problem here, and then do the SAME problematic thing YET AGAIN, that's now a triply bad thing. When you're in a hole, stop digging my friend. --Jayron32 18:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Who should do formal closures?

    I strange thing had happened recently. I opened a formal closure request and a totally random user had closed it. I naturally reopened it and it stood like that for a few days until yesterday when another editor had closed it with an explanation "already done". I pointed out to him that the closure was not done properly by a random user and he said: "Sorry, I didn't realize that the close was done by a "random editor". Why didn't someone just reopen it? I will look at it again to see if I can help.". Then he made a mistake by thinking the closure was done by an admin. Both I and the editor who closed it initially had pointed out that mistake. Then the editor who had closed it had backed down from the whole discussion because, as he had put it: "it's not enriching my life and it's not improving the encyclopedia.". I again pointed out that said it needs to be properly closed, and that he had made a mistake. He said I can go to ANI. Here I am.

    My question here is. Can any random user go and close formal requests. I can also ask, what would happen if I were to close other formal requests.

    I would like for the request to be properly closed by an uninvolved admin.

    Links: Talk with the editor who closed the formal request. [81] Continuation on my talk page [82]

    If you would like to read the discussion for yourself, it is linked at the bottom of this second section. I will just write a brief description as objective I can since I was involved in the discussion.

    A RS was presented with a request to be included in the article. Another editor objected. Another editor closed the request pending consensus, and purposed an alternative edit. I accepted his suggestion. The editor who initially objected had changed his opinion and went to include the edit in the article. I asked of the person who closed the request pending consensus to close it since we reached a consensus with his alternative purposal. Then another editor had contacted the editor who had entered the edit to the article on his talk page with the following claims :"what is your problem, why are you introducing Croatian propaganda to the article". He reverted the edit and went on to post a source to validate his revert. The source is a youtube link on Serbian language. I asked him to provide a quote from the source on English. He didn't do that. I also can't see the content of the other source he presented, but it supposedly says something that I agree upon, and irrelevant to the edit request. The discussion then had stopped, and the already described chain of events had happened.

    Initial discussion [83] 141.136.228.115 (talk) 18:38, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Reading over Wikipedia:Edit requests, it would appear that any editor can assess the consensus of an edit request discussion and make the requested edit or refuse to and close the request. Specifically, it states Responding editors may decline to make any edit, and are especially likely to reject edits that are controversial, violate Wikipedia policy, or do not have evidence of consensus.
    The only time that the closer needs to be an administrator is when the article is under full protection and editing is limited to admins. But being an admin is not a requirement for an ordinary edit request close. Liz Read! Talk! 19:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    We are speaking here of the formal closure request. Even if he had closed only the edit request we can hardly say it would be valid since he is not impartial which can be seen from his explanation. 141.136.228.115 (talk) 19:52, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I will rephrase my request. I would like for the formal closure request be dealt with an admin or any other well established editor who is impartial. This editor first had seen the discussion then he felt he disagrees then he closed it. That's hardly impartial. 141.136.228.115 (talk) 20:00, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, do I have to note again that the editor who eventually came to close the request had agreed it was closed improperly.141.136.228.115 (talk) 20:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If a RFC is improperly closed, you can ask for a review of the close on WP:AN and say why you think the close was improper. But the reasons must not be that you disagreed with the close, or if the closer is an admin or not. Valid reasons are that the closer was involved, simply counted votes, or completely ignored consensus that is obvious. AlbinoFerret 20:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Formal closure requests can't be closed by just anyone. Especially not in such a way this one was closed. If that can be done then I can freely go and close a few myself. I will just repeat what the other editor who came to close it in a proper way said:"Sorry, I didn't realize that the close was done by a "random editor". Why didn't someone just reopen it? I will look at it again to see if I can help.". I really didn't think this will be such a big deal. Let someone experienced and impartial close it and let's be done with it. It's not so long. There is only 1 source and none that opposes it. You do realize in what position I'm put as an IP editor? The matter is very simple. I have a RS and I want to introduce it in the article. If someone disagrees, they are free to contest my source with their own sources , but as long it is uncontested I should be able to put it in the article. 141.136.228.115 (talk) 21:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:CSD#F5 request: File:Wings for My Flight book cover.jpg

    Resolved

    The article Wings for My Flight is currently at GAN, and apparently, I had uploaded the wrong version of the book cover and didn't find out until the day the GA review started. I have since uploaded a new version of the file, but since the previous version of the file is now orphaned, it fails WP:NFCC and should be deleted per WP:F5. Normally, this is done by adding {{subst:orfurrev}} to the page and waiting seven days; however, one of the GA stipulations is to ensure that the orphaned revision is deleted. Could the orphaned revision be deleted right away? To clarify, I want the old, orphaned revision of the image deleted, not the current image. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 18:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Done. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Mz7 (talk) 19:40, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Lugnuts reverts my edits for no reason other than personal beef.

    I'm getting sick of it, and I know that other users are too because he's done the same to them and they've written to me about it. He's always the first to complain so he gets his way. It's getting a little frustrating. I got a one week block last week for doing something that he's done countless times, but he complained about me doing it a couple times after learning it from him and BAM. Film Fan 18:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    No, I've been reverting disruptive page moves from this user. He was blocked for a week for disruptive page moves. Within momements of coming off the block, he continues to start to move pages that really need to go through the WP:RM process. FF knows full well how to do the RM process, but seems to ignore these. For example this article was moved by FF, despite the title's name coming up for discussion on the talkpage of said article. He has a long block log for edit warring on film poster reverts and page moves without discussion. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:46, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I did a bunch of uncontroversial moves and missed the convo about one of them (which, by the way seems to point toward the title I moved it to). The rest stands. There's no need to request moves (which I do regularly) for the uncontroversial ones. Do you have any excuse for your other reverts today and last week, other than what I've pointed out? The poster reverts in particular left me absolutely dumbfounded. Film Fan 18:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    They were far from uncontroversial. Have a look at WP:RM. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Current discussions, I see Film Fan has posted a couple of RM requests today since posting this complaint at ANI but I don't see any requests in the previous few days. Liz Read! Talk! 19:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Read the OP. Film Fan 19:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Lugnuts, I am well familiar with WP:RM. Now back to your multitude of reverts - in particular the poster ones - what's the point? All you're doing is creating conversations that don't need to be had. Film Fan 19:44, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editing by *AirportUpdater*

    *AirportUpdater*

    I've been editing here for as long as I can remember, as an IP of course. But I have a complaint to make about this particular user. *AirportUpdater* .

    Overview
    When I came across the user I noticed that he was removing hyphons '-' from airport links on articles despite a consensus on WP:AIRPORTS. Not only, he has have removed references from articles. This could result in the article ending up with a source tag.

    Report
    Here is 1 example of his disruptive editing: from this diff .

    He continues the exact same behaviour using the exact same edit summary on multiple articles, despite consensus.

    Action
    I would like the user to be blocked for a while, maybe even indef. The editing has gone to far, without any admin action. Please take care of this situation as soon as possible. Thanks.

    46.208.248.225 (talk) 18:49, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    If that example is typical, what he's doing looks like a waste of time, though it's not clear why he should be blocked for it. There are no hyphons (or even hyphens) in "Orlando International Airport". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:53, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I can see why you might want me be blocked but my edits are not meant to harm any pages. I am simply making each page better. In relation to references, there is no need for them when flights are already running. That's why I've been deleting them from airport pages (and I'm not the only one doing so). Now, talking about MCO, this has been an ongoing issue and topic between editors and I have been commenting on WP:Airports about this issue. For the longest of times, MCO has been listed as "Orlando" on every airport website and I am simply sticking to this idea. We are currently in discussions on WP:Airports and until a final decision has been made, there shouldn't be any changes to the airport pages. Hope you understand. *AirportUpdater* (talk) 19:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, 46.208.248.225, I would consider you creating a talk page so we can discuss this matter privately instead of bringing to the Administrator's attention first. Thanks, *AirportUpdater* (talk) 19:08, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I must admit I am confused about the idea that you don't need sources for flights that are currently active (am I misunderstanding?), like in [84]. Wikipedia relies on sources; not everything is required to have an inline citation to stay, but when there is a valid inline citation to prove a fact, it doesn't seem appropriate to remove it to me. LjL (talk) 19:10, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks you for your comment. Yes, you are correct. However, on airport pages, this is how we do things: When an airline announces a new service, we add the airport with a "begin" date and a source verifying that this is accurate. Then, when the service does start, there's no need for the reference anymore telling us when it will begin so it makes no sense to keep it. That's why these sources are then deleted. Hope this answers your question. *AirportUpdater* (talk) 19:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It answers it I guess, but it's concerning that it is the way it's done just on airport pages. Since "unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope" (from WP:Local consensus), the accepted guidelines about having reliable sources in the articles are as valid for airport pages as for any other article. LjL (talk) 19:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I don't know about other articles as I am only an Airport Updater (my name). All I know is regarding references for airline routes, we've always been deleting these after flights have begun. Otherwise, the page would get very clobbered and littered with unnecessary junk. One last thing we airport editors do is put references when services resume or end. Again, after they do resume/end, we take away the source as there is no need for it anymore. *AirportUpdater* (talk) 19:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    References to sources are not "unnecessary junk"... :-\ Don't you have sources with a consolidated list of current flights that you could use as non-inline references for such articles? LjL (talk) 19:43, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you ever edited an airport's page before? It seems as though you aren't entirely sure what I'm talking about yet. Airport articles only need sources for new/resuming/ending flights that will happen in the future. Once that date has passed, there is no need for a reference telling us when it will begin, end, or resume. It is, junk (it doesn't benefit the page anymore). Understand a little better? *AirportUpdater* (talk) 19:49, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't need to have edited an airport's page to know that claims on Wikipedia need to be backed up by sources. Do these airport pages claim that certain flights are currently ongoing? If so, are sources given to verify that the claims are true? If not, why not? LjL (talk) 19:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Every airport page has a chart listing which airlines fly from that airport and the destinations (next to the airline) that each airline flies to. Some also have which concourses/gates/terminal they are located at. Here are some examples: John F. Kennedy International Airport, Pittsburgh International Airport. Maybe looking at these pages can answer your 2nd question because I believe I've answered it multiple times already. *AirportUpdater* (talk) 19:59, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If you can see, there are some sources next to routes that will be beginning, ending, or resuming. There is no need for sources next to all the others because they are already running. This is how it's always been on Wikipedia. *AirportUpdater* (talk) 20:01, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    My second question is a simple one that can be answered with "yes" or "no". My tentative answer is "no", as I can see no sources to the lengthy tables of current routes. Is that how it's always been? I don't know, but that's inconsequential. I'm sure if people systematically remove the sources, then in the long run they will not be there. LjL (talk) 20:21, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Please consider that I do not share the opinion that administrative action needs to be taken against you, as to me, it seems obvious you have acted in good faith. At the same time, I see a possible inconsistency between Wikipedia guidelines and your "typical-of-airport-articles" edits, and I think it's worth making sure the people who routinely edit airport articles (like any other group) do it in line with the guidelines of the rest of the encyclopedia. LjL (talk) 20:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly! It's always been like this. I'm not the first one to be deleting sources for routes that are running so I have no idea why this person is accusing me of doing something disruptive and worth blocking. Good discussion. *AirportUpdater* (talk) 20:29, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    ...And thank you very much for agreeing. I am not a kind of person that goes around editing articles for pure enjoyment, I do it to make each page as accurate as possible without having unnecessary text in places it shouldn't be. Thanks again, *AirportUpdater* (talk) 20:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I must still stress that citations that verify the material contained in the article are not unnecessary, though, but in fact necessary in most circumstances. That doesn't mean you should be sanctioned, but if removing such citations is the norm for the airport articles people, then those people should really start a discourse with the rest of Wikipedia. LjL (talk) 21:09, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Need some help with a Florida IP

    Block evader blocked again by Mike V. GABHello! 20:30, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    I'm having a problem with block evasion from Florida IPs, most recently Special:Contributions/166.172.184.116. At the case page Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ridryman, a series of 166.172.1xx IPs were shown to be part of a sockpuppet pool, editing music articles. A few days ago I encountered Special:Contributions/166.172.185.120 which appeared to be connected, editing music articles in the same manner, and today I got a particularly nasty response from another such IP, as seen in the edit summaries. Binksternet (talk) 19:17, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I've blocked the IP for 24 hours. If this pops again, please ping me and I'll look into a range block. Mike V • Talk 19:30, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey, thanks for now, and also in advance of the next time. Binksternet (talk) 20:01, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Chicbyaccident

    User:Chicbyaccident is displaying serious competence issues. I first encountered the user because major changes were made to the layout of Freemasonry, which is a GA article. In addition to the edit comment made by the reverter, I informed the user of the issue on their talk page The user then moved Grand Master (Masonic) without discussion, and I requested a tech move back for that reason. I also informed the user of the issue on their talk page, making reference to other editing issues as well, such as:

    These edits have been very disruptive to the encyclopedia, especially because the moves have to be undone by board request because of good-faith edits afterwards. Discussion has not proven useful. because the same edits are being made. MSJapan (talk) 20:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Wrongly assumed to be a credit card number: please fix

    User:Sandra opposed to terrorism edited her own sandbox but somebody incorrectly thought someone else's credit card number was posted and oversighted it and blocked Sandra. In fact, those numbers were random numbers. Also keep in mind that the sandbox page is for use by that specific user and can be seen by others only with extreme snooping. Also keep in mind that it was stated that these are not someone else's credit card number so AGF dictates that we believe this.

    To make things complicated, Sandra's blocking doesn't allow editing her own talk page, which is really heavy handed. However, Sandra expresses sorrow and will not joke around in her sandbox anymore.

    "sorry, sorry, sorry" says Sandra. Won't confuse people again and do something like that.

    The block reason stated "20:13, 19 October 2015...blocked Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page) (posting credit card info on wiki. Blocking until we have an understanding that is not a good idea, removing talk page access for same reason.)

    incorrect because no credit card into was posted. Sandra has an understand that this is not a good idea.

    By the way, I am Sandra. I am posting like this because my talk page is locked.

    Thank you. Please just unblock me and not make a big drama out of it. In return, I will edit only one item in the next 2-3 days and it will be a non-controversial correction of an error in an article along with citations to prove it.

    Sandra OTT (temporary) (talk) 20:52, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=686869875"